An Ill Wind

Only a government could take something as pure and simple as wind and make it more despised than a snowstorm in July.

I follow the continued debate about wind power in Ontario with dismay, as both proponents and opponents distort the facts to fortify their positions. To some, the image of a wind turbine is the very symbol of a clean energy future. To others it is the symbol of corporate imperialism; the extraction of resources and profit without compensation.

The issue has pitted neighbour against neighbour in communities across Grey and Bruce Counties. At the core of it is the McGuinty government’s disrespect for the decision making authority of rural municipalities, informed by local citizens.

In an attempt to push back against the heavy hand of provincial government policy, many faulty claims are trotted out as fact. Take the economic argument for example. Opponents point to the subsidies offered through the Feed-in Tariff and MicroFit programs as evidence that wind power is uneconomical, without pointing out that all forms of power generation in Ontario are heavily subsidized. In 2010, the Ontario Power Authority payed out $269 million in subsidies to all renewable sources of energy, which amounts to about 0.2 cents of the average 13 cents per kilowatt hour on the typical electricity bill.

The subsidy numbers on nuclear power are much more difficult to obtain. The costs of construction, operation, decommissioning, waste storage, the “external” costs of dirty uranium mining, etc have not been calculated into the price per kWh, but there is one number we know for sure. In 2010 the Ontario Power Authority (by way of you, the taxpayer) payed out $1.35 billion - 5 times the renewable subsidy - to meet nuclear and gas purchase agreements. Those purchase agreements are contracts to buy excess power that cannot be used due to the limitations of our aging power grid.

Yes, that is $1.35 billion for power that was never used. In one year.

Now before all the wind farm proponents reading this get all giddy with excitement and self-righteous glee, I should mention that $269 million is still a mighty large wad of cash if it’s going to the wrong place. You see, the question is not whether to subsidize or not subsidize. Unless power users want to pay at least double the current rate, subsidies are here to stay. The question at hand is who benefits from the monies payed out?

This is where the McGuinty government blew it on an epic scale. Someone thought Ontarians would be fine with funneling huge gobs of taxpayer money to multinational corporations like Samsung in Korea, with no say in the matter.

Rather than beating this dead horse any further, how do we move forward from here?

Sensible energy policy in Ontario requires addressing three key issues. Ownership, decentralization, and conservation.

The conservation argument is so obvious that I can’t for the life of me figure out why we’re still not getting serious about it. 16 to 20 cents spent on conservation and efficiency programs achieves the same benefit as a whole dollar spent on development of new sources of generation. One cannot help wonder who the Ontario Power Authority is really working for when they continue to put the interests of power corporations ahead of the interests of the Ontario taxpayer.

The second key ingredient in creating a more sensible energy policy for Ontario involves the further decentralization of power production in the province. Our current system relies upon large centralized power infrastructure - nuclear plants, coal plants and wind farms - sending power to large centralized transfer stations. In our case, the power gets sent all the way to Milton before it is redistributed back out onto the grid. There are two major problems with this system. First, a whopping 20 percent of the power generated in Ontario is lost in transmission. It disappears into thin air never to be used. This is astonishing waste. The second problem is that transmission capacity is often reserved for large power plants, preventing small energy producers from even accessing the grid.

The solution is restructuring the Ontario grid to a “smart grid”. A smart grid sends the power as it is produced to the closest point of use, then distributes the remainder to next point of use and so on. The redevelopment of the grid could be financed almost entirely from elimination of line loss, and it would open up opportunities for every home, farm, and business to become power producers. They would profit from a more stable, clean power supply and renewable subsidies would be channeled back to Ontario taxpayers rather than to multinational corporations.

The third component in a sensible energy policy involves more local ownership of power infrastructure. Rather than large-scale wind farms owned by foreign corporations, imposed against the will of the community, we need both the ownership and the profits of wind and other power projects under local control. This can take the form of community energy co-ops, small-scale private projects, or municipally owned power production. All would include meaningful input from the community and shared benefits. It is clear from other jurisdictions around the world that when the community has a direct stake in the success of an energy project, it encounters little opposition.

The direct benefits can be in the form of municipal revenues from energy sales, reduced energy costs from preferential municipal pricing, or direct profits to local owners; all of which get recycled into the local economy.

Conservation, decentralization and local ownership.

The ingredients are there, now we need a provincial leader with the vision to put the long-term interests of taxpayers ahead of short-term political gain.

Tags: energy, wind

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The LocalMotive Project to add comments!

Join The LocalMotive Project

Comment by Shane Jolley on May 17, 2011 at 9:32: by Lorrie Gillis

Wind power for me is hanging my laundry out on a line and opening a window to cool my home in the summer time. I've never felt any need to stretch or distort any facts about industrial wind turbines to demonstrate how destructive they are to our rural communities.

In Ontario alone with approximately 700 turbines up and running, almost 30 families have had to leave their home after turbines started up nearby. Countless others are sick; sleep deprived, nauseated, suffer headaches and heart palpitations since turbines roared to life nearby but don't have the option to walk away or take legal action to get a wind company to pay fair market value for homes they can't sell. There are ample credible reports of people who are suffering. These people were fine before turbines started up, many even welcomed them into the community, they became sick with exposure to turbines, they got better when they left home for a period of time and they got sick again when they returned. Serious adverse health issues for families living near wind turbines have been documented and ignored. See www.windvigilance.com and download WindVOiCe. It doesn't take long.

There are a number of other problems on top of the health issues. This EBR just came online. Check it out:
"Ministry: Ministry of Natural Resources
EBR Registry Number: 011-3181
Title:Permit under section 17 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) to allow Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park in the Township of South Marysburgh, Prince Edward County " This is also a major bird migratory path on Lake Ontario.
And then we have Councils who do not want to rush ahead to put turbines up, who want answers to questions that remained unanswered and who are being threatened with legal action from the wind company. I've witnessed IPR DGFSuez, formerly IPC, formerly AIM wind power, publicly threaten my own Grey Highlands council with legal action 3 times now.

IPR DGFSuez/IPC/AIM is paying Hydro One to change the lines along Grey Road 2 into 44,000kv lines with 45-50 ft hydro poles along the road and in many places where no poles exist now. Trees along Grey 2 and trees in the Kolapore County Forest will be cut down to accommodate this. A living snowfence near Ravenna, trees planted to reduce winter drifting, will be impacted as well. County councilors were surprised to learn that this work being done by Hydro was not routine but that a wind developer was behind it.

The wind industry continues to deny there are problems and do not disclose the potential impact to landowners who lease their land out for turbines. These landowners are even exempt from the completely ineffective setback distance of 550 meters and end up with turbines even closer to their homes. Two wind companies are recorded in land registry records as buying out 10 family homes with one more pending (keep in mind, these are the ones I know about, there may be more) This was not done out of the goodness of their heart to be good corporate citizens. People have to pay dearly to take legal action to make this happen. Many other companies just walk away and never address the problem with any meaningful action.

I will add that community owned wind installations strike me as a soft-sell of the same old thing, even though those involved are getting some financial benefit. There is one planned for Melancthon (Shelburne), 50 turbines will be shoehorned into a very small space, all who have signed, if it follows most other contracts we've looked at, will be unable to discuss anything due to confidentiality clauses. The wind corporation will own 51% of the project and the community group will own 49%. There are people who leased their land and who are sick. The money does not help them feel better.

I don't see much that is sensible, forthcoming, open or green about the wind industry or our provincial Liberal government.

Lorrie

Comment by Rural Canadian on May 14, 2011 at 8:10: What you have to say about our energy supply makes a lot of sense Shane, the whole energy debate is one which will, I am sure, will be a major part of the upcoming provincial election and I applaud your efforts to find some middle ground between the two extremes that have indeed developed. There are however a couple of points to be considered which you have not mentioned which after touching upon those you have addressed I will try and raise without being too controversial.

I think we can all agree, at least those of us in rural areas who are the ones largely affected by 'wind farm' proposals and installations, that both municipal and environmental control must me reinstated for such industrial sized developments. It is unfortunate that such large scale hydro generation required mostly by our urban areas is inflicted upon our rural population, it would be as you say, much more acceptable if said rural taxpayers received some direct benefit from same by being owners via the local municipality. Tip of the hat here to our local municipality for developing their small but innovative biodigester generating plant!

I also agree that decentralization, micro generation and a smart grid can go a long way towards producing and distributing power more efficiently and that there is some room left for conservation particularly in commercial and industrial sectors who have largely been left out of that debate thus far. The individual householder can only do so much without a total change of lifestyle and most of us whist willing to do our bit are not in a position to 'rough it, to save hydro. It must also be said here that the general demand for hydro will not go down as the population rises, our workforce gradually get back to work after sitting at home search for jobs for 2 or 3 years, and the electric car 'saves' us all from gas prices but will require energy input from the hydro grid.

Now comes the tough part, and that is the actual source of hydro for that distributed system and where I have yet to see a practical solution that does not include nuclear for the foreseeable future, this is not to say that the risks, costs, waste storage and other issues with nuclear must not be addressed and considered but that, at least here in Ontario, it is the only source of hydro other than coal, gas and a small number of hydro electric plants that is available 24/7 whenever we need it. I am greatly troubled by the increasing dialog that says wind and solar can replace other forms of generation, both can only do so part time and on an unpredictable basis and must therefore be 'backed up' by a means of providing power for that windless -25 winter night. Imported hydro from the US coal plants is not the answer, nor is building gas fired plants (admittedly cleaner than coal but still a carbon emitting process) to sit idling waiting for the wind to drop or to pick up the load at dusk.

I wish I could see a brighter future for wind and solar but without a hydro storage solution it would seem to create as many problems as it solves. There is some room for micro wind and solar and battery storage for individual homeowners but neither of those are even an option for most of our apartment dwelling urban population. There is also the possibility of pumped storage to large reservoirs to produce hydro electric power when needed but seeking locations for such installations would be as bad if not worse than the industrialization of our rural lands into wind farms. Micro hydro electric has much potential but current regulations and conservationist concerns all but make such installations on our rivers impossible

In short, I do not have the answer, just more questions. We need micro generation on every building in the city, we need a means of storing 'green' power, we need a means of compensating rural municipalities where they 'suffer' the 'disruption' of providing power for our urban friends, we need local input for local proposals and we need an open and unbiased debate on practical solutions.

I look forward to your ideas in finding an acceptable and practical middle ground to solve this delema.

Comment by Neil Baldwin on May 9, 2011 at 20:57: I too just don't get why there is not more emphasis on conservation... although a conspiracy theorist might certainly speculate why not.

Frankly, I don't know much about the mechanics or the numbers of large-scale electricity generation but I have always, nevertheless, believed that if people *truly* conserved there would likely be no need for new power plants. But, then, my time living in GTA suburbia (I am now off-grid in Grey) showed me that one problem is that people don't like to be inconvenienced... they don't want their house too hot in summer, they don't want the hassle of hanging laundry or having the neighbours look at their undies on the line, they like their lights on, their enormous TV screens and gadgets running all the time, and they want things done fast and easy, by any number of electric appliances which replace human effort (and thought).

In addition to knowing little about large-scale electricity generation, I know even less about distribution. But I do understand that electricity is lost over transmission, even at high voltage, which makes me think Holy Crap... the power goes all the way from Bruce Nuclear to Milton before being sent onwards ?!?!

Having been living off-grid for soon to be 2 years now, I am learning lots about small-scale electricity generation. I am also, as an Ontario taxpayer, not too happy about subsidizing the grid. If people paid the true cost of electricity in their monthly bill I expect conservation might move onto the collective radar screen.

Just my $0.02.

RSS

Welcome to
The LocalMotive Project

Sign Up
or Sign In

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service